Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Seizure of Citibank Account No. 207100082 In Name of All Profit Organization, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 27, 2019

IN RE THE SEIZURE OF CITIBANK ACCOUNT NO. 207100082 IN THE NAME OF ALL PROFIT ORGANIZATION, LLC IN RE THE SEIZURE OF 2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, VIN 3GCPCREC4FG173943, LICENSE PLATE NO. 68914H2

          ORDER DENYING GEORGETTE PURNELL'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NOS. 32, 36)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On October 9, 2019, the Court granted a Motion for the Return of Property Subject to Seizure Order filed by Scorpio Purnell. (Doc. No. 29.) The Court's order required the United States to return the funds totaling $9, 574.45 seized from Citibank Account No. 207100082 (the “Citibank Account”) to Scorpio Purnell. (Id.) On October 15, 2019, Georgette Purnell filed a Motion to Release Funds. (Doc. No. 30.) In her motion, Georgette Purnell claimed that she is the CEO of All Profit Organization, LLC, and has a power of attorney to act on behalf of Scorpio Purnell. (Id.) Georgette Purnell accordingly requested that the funds subject to the Court's October 9, 2019 order be delivered to her in the name of All Profit Organization, LLC. (Id.) On October 22, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Ms. Purnell's Motion to Release Funds. (Doc. No. 31.)

         Currently before the Court is Ms. Purnell's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's October 22, 2019 order denying her Motion to Release Funds. (Doc. Nos. 32, 36.)[1] Ms. Purnell did not file any proof of service of the Motion for Reconsideration on the United States or Scorpio Purnell and it appears these parties did not have an opportunity to file a response. However, the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230 (g), (1).

         “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law, ” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

         Ms. Purnell argues that the power of attorney attached to her original Motion to Release Funds as well as her Motion for Reconsideration permits her to seek return of the funds seized from the Citibank Account. (Doc. No. 32.) Ms. Purnell claims that she intended “to complete a business transaction after the grant had become completed” and not to represent Scorpio Purnell. (Id.)

         Ms. Purnell's arguments merely state her disagreement with the Court's decision and recapitulate information already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. Ms. Purnell fails to show that there is any newly discovered evidence, the Court committed clear error, or there was an intervening change in the controlling law. She additionally has not presented any new or different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not shown upon a prior motion, nor has she identified any other grounds that exist for the motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Ms. Purnell has failed to set forth grounds entitling her to reconsideration of the Court's October 22, 2019 order.

         Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

         1. Georgette Purnell's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 32, 36) is DENIED; and

         2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in In re the Seizure of Citibank Account No. 207100082 in the Name of All Profit Organization, LLC, No. 1:18-sw-00307-BAM-1, and In re the Seizure of 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN 3GCPCREC4FG173943, License Plate No. 68914H2, No. 1:18-sw-00308-LJO-BAM-1.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Ms. Purnell's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Release Funds were both filed in In re the Seizure of 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN 3GCPCREC4FG173943, License Plate No. 68914H2, No. 1:18-sw-00308-LJO-BAM-1. However, this matter concerns the seizure of a 2015 Chevrolet Silverado and not the funds seized from the Citibank Account. Additionally, this matter is stayed pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. It appears Ms. Purnell's motions should have been filed in In re the Seizure of Citibank Account No. 207100082 in the Name of All Profit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.